Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractBasic literacy, the mere ability to read and write, is relatively easily mastered by children so long as the signs of the writing system map on to comprehensible properties of the learner's speech and appropriate learning environments are available (Venezky, 2004). But that skill in itself has little to do with turning literacy into an instrument of use and power. Reading is a social practice in which readers and writers engage with text for quite different purposes and some of these ways of dealing with written texts are sufficiently different from the more basic processes of learning to read and write that they are more correctly described by a second meaning of literacy, namely, literacy as an acquaintance with literature or academic literacy; meaning the ability to deal with an encyclopedic range of written materials. The community of readers evolve conventions for reading and interpreting documents and texts as well as for writing new texts that may take years to master. There is a third concept of literacy: societal literacy (Elwert, 2001), which refers to the kind of literacy that underwrites a modern bureaucratic society. The criteria to be met, if one is to be judged as achieving any of these concepts of literacy, are importantly different. Besides, the concepts of basic and advanced levels of literacy are embarrassingly close to those at play in much current educational practice. And, like that practice, they are limited in the sense that highlighting the criteria leaves hidden the social communicative practices that these criteria are designed to serve. The danger of enumerating criteria is that, too readily, they become the direct object of instruction rather than remaining, as they should be, specialised devices for advancing communication and understanding in particular domains.ResumenLa alfabetización básica, la habilidad de leer y escribir, se adquiere de manera relativamente fácil pero tiene poco que ver con la posibilidad de que la lectura y la escritura se usen y sean herramientas de poder ya que estas son prácticas sociales en las cuales lectores y escritores se involucran con los textos para muy distintos propósitos. Algunas de las formas de gestionar los textos difieren tanto de la alfabetización básica que será mejor describirlas por un segundo concepto: alfabetización como conocimiento de la bibliografía o alfabetización académica. Las comunidades de lectores desarrollan convenciones para leer y producir textos que puede llevar muchos años llegar a dominar. Estas convenciones que suscribe una sociedad burocrática moderna subyacen a un tercer concepto de alfabetización: alfabetización social (Elwert, 2001). Los criterios que han de satisfacerse para ser considerado alfabetizado según uno u otro concepto difieren enormemente; pero el peligro de enumerar estos criterios es que se transformen en objeto directo de instrucción en lugar de mantenerse como recursos especializados para avanzar nuestra comprensión y comunicación en dominios particulares de conocimiento.Keywords: Concepts of literacybasic literacyacademic literacysocietal literacyPalabras clave: Conceptos de alfabetizaciónalfabetización básicaalfabetización académicaalfabetización social
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it